God - do you believe?

[polishgenius]

King David sinned - if only that Bathsheba wasn't around. The Greeks did it too - Helen of Troy must have been some hawt hawt babe.

I think you're reaching with those two. David is certainly held accountable for the sin there, and I don't recall any version I've seen or read where blame is attached to Helen, though I've not read the Iliad itself so I can't say for certain...

Not that the point, overall, doesn't hold water. We've been total bastards.

I have no problem with people having personal spiritual beliefs, it's when they stop being personal, start being pushed onto people, laws and politics that I just go on the offensive.

Well true, this topic is filled with people trying to push their view of things on others. Of course it's mostly been atheists, including you, but don't let that stop you.

[Fragile Bird]

The point about Helen of Troy was that a protacted, 10 year war in which many great heroes died happened because the Trojan king was bewitched by her beauty and took her back to Troy. The story of David says he was so struck by Bathsheba's beauty he had to have her, even though she was married to the son of one of his advisors, a son he ordered to the front lines to be killed to cover up his adultery. And even after he confessed his adultery, the house of David was sent punishments - his son from the adultery died after birth, his oldest son rose up in rebellion against him and publicly had sex with 10 of his father's concubines, and eventually David's oldest surviving son did not suceed his father, his son by Bathsheba, Solomon, becoming king instead. You can't be an adulterer in the bible without evil consequences.

[polishgenius]

Well yeah. But your initial suggestion was that the blame for those things was laid on the woman, and none of that adds anything to the proposal that it was.

[Ser Greguh]

Well true, this topic is filled with people trying to push their view of things on others. Of course it's mostly been atheists, including you, but don't let that stop you.

Again with the false equivalencies. What views are those? Atheism is a criticism of another person's view but not really a view in and of itself. We're "pushing our views" onto people? What do we have to push with? We're not promising eternal salvation if you join our club. We're not threatening eternal damnation if you don't. We don't even really have a club at all. Explanation of a thought process is not the same thing as pushing a view. Criticism of another position is not the same thing as pushing a view. Despite a consistent drone of complaining from the religious, there is no atheist equivalent to religious proselytizing. When was the last time someone knocked on your door and pressured you to abandon Jesus?

In the United States at least, a significant percentage of public policy is constructed via hyper-religious politicians, who often have no concept of morality or basic human order outside of the context of their church, pushing that specific religious viewpoint onto the public at large. This is what King Lannister is complaining about, and it's a real problem. It's the fuel of the anti-woman, anti-homosexual, anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-reason agenda of the American political far right. These viewpoints are strictly religious, but the contrapositive to them does not involve atheism.

[Castel]

^^ What he said. The claim that atheists are pushing their view on people only works when you take into account the privileged position of religious people. Since they have successfully pushed their beliefs on people in thousands of ways day in day out, they tend to take for granted that they can do those things and when called on it, claim to be oppressed or have views forced on them. It's classic conservative self-victimization.

[polishgenius]

It's classic conservative self-victimization.

:rolleyes:

It's one of my major irritations when fellow Christians embarrass themselves by claiming victimisation when talking about gay marriage or whatever. Please don't lump us all into one package.

But I was talking about King Lannister's response to this topic, in which it's several times been implied or outright stated that, if I believe in God, I'm outing myself as a moron. And that's pushing views on someone. If his beef was with the wider American public debate, then he should have said so, because as it stands, he charged into a mostly civil discussion, called all of us not on his side of the fence stupid, then claimed that he only goes on the offensive if someone tries to push their views on him. Which hadn't happened.

[Ser Greguh]

But I was talking about King Lannister's response to this topic, in which it's several times been implied or outright stated that, if I believe in God, I'm outing myself as a moron. And that's pushing views on someone.

Actually, no, it's not. It's an inelegant and rude form of criticism, but it's still just a criticism. If someone says that they have faith that consciousness can be explained by unicorns, I can criticize that belief as somewhat silly and almost certainly incorrect, but that doesn't mean I'm implicitly pushing some alternate explanation for consciousness in the place of that silly one.

[Errant Bard]

The point about Helen of Troy was that a protacted, 10 year war in which many great heroes died happened because the Trojan king was bewitched by her beauty and took her back to Troy.

Meh, the point was that Paris won the most beautiful woman on earth by declaring Aphrodite more beautiful that Hera and Athena, and the contest was decided by Zeus himself. He chose to have Helen.

I don't think you can take that part of Greek mythology to argue about the gender based double standard in history, as they are all bastards, women AND men. I am puzzled at why you would reject blame on Helen, anyway, when Paris is the one who chose to kidnap her, even if she was willing. Isn't it like blaming the victim? Helen was the hottest babe around, but Paris was not described as having been forced to march to Helen's tune -the decision comes from him.

Why would you think that a man reading the story of a douchebag eloping with a married woman would think everything is the woman's fault? It's weird. Is that how you read the story yourself?

[Golden Lion]

Well true, this topic is filled with people trying to push their view of things on others. Of course it's mostly been atheists, including you, but don't let that stop you.

I'm a bit amused by how me sharing my opinion is pushing it onto anyone. I am not trying to convert anyone to atheism, the topic calls for my answer to the question. I shared my opinion.

If you think sharing any negative opinion is pushing a belief, then I fear that the world may not be very welcoming to you.

[Fragile Bird]

No, I don't think that I said in any of my posts that women are at fault. I think for both Bathsheba and Helen it's the idea of woman as seductive temptress whose beauty makes men fall in some way. You don't see many women in either the bible or mythology who are tempted into doing wrong (or sin or evil or whatever you want to call it or whatever the circumstance is) because they are struck by the physical beauty of a man, do you? Look at the US Politics thread - Pat Robertson says it's not General Petraeus' fault, it was that woman seducing him.

This line of thought started with the idea that the concept of original sin shows how evil God is, original sin qualifying as a crime against humanity. Let's blame God. My point it's men doing the writing and there's a history of men blaming women. Whether or not the woman in question in fact is to blame wholly or in part seems irrelevent.

[Sci-2]

Let's blame God. My point it's men doing the writing and there's a history of men blaming women.

The problem is we're talking about many, many Gods in this thread. At minimum you have Yaweh-taken-as-written and God-influences-scripture-but-scripture-still-gets-things-wrong.

So *if* there is a God who cursed humanity with O-sin, then that is a crime worthy of prosecution and, to some, execution. But this isn't the same thing as definitively stating that our Creator did cast the O-sin curse on our race, or even that such a being exists.

[Eponine]

This line of thought started with the idea that the concept of original sin shows how evil God is, original sin qualifying as a crime against humanity. Let's blame God. My point it's men doing the writing and there's a history of men blaming women. Whether or not the woman in question in fact is to blame wholly or in part seems irrelevent.

If the Bible is written by misogynists who will twist the truth to blame women, then what do you consider a reliable source for knowledge of god? Internal knowledge/feelings? Or the fact that most people you know, maybe as part of your upbringing, believe in some sort of god? (You always refer to god as singular and capitalized, and you appear to know something about the Bible, so it seems like your concept of god is at least influenced by Christian-god). Or you've arbitrarily decided that all the good parts about Christian-god are true and all the bad parts are because of human mistakes?

While I understand why people ignore parts of the Bible as well as labeling many parts as non-literal or historic/descriptive rather than prescriptive, it always annoys me that people will tell you what parts of the Bible should be dismissed while still insisting that it would be wrong to dismiss Christianity. (I'm not really talking about FB here, since she has more of a believe what you want take on it).

[Castel]

Honestly, having been raised as a literalist I have yet to see a good explanation for dismissing parts of the holy text without compromising the religion entirely. I understand that Christianity is different, but I've yet to see any sort of system of prioritization (i.e. this verse can be ignored, that verse cannot), beyond claiming that the New Testament represents the rules and beliefs for today's society.

If you do choose to cherrypick then as far as I can see you've created your own spin-off religion and god and honestly, you are not an authority past your one-man cult. But I do see the sort of claims that Eponine is talking about. Liberal Christians will dismiss their conservative brethren, claiming that they're acting in an un-Christlike fashion, conservative Christians will dismiss the liberals etc, etc.

[sologdin]

yep. citing the bible in any particular brings out all of the nasty bits, pursuant to FRE 106:

If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other writing or recorded statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.

[Sci-2]

But religion, at its heart, seems to me to be reaching for truth. It's all spinoffs and alternate cosmologies and retcons. So it makes sense that people read something and feel the spiritual connection and decide: "This part is true."

But I was raised Hindu so maybe that's why I don't see the issue with belief-buffet.

[Fragile Bird]

Sci - more important to me is that God didn't write the bible, men did. If the men who wrote what they did were divinely informed, I still don't think they could filter out their viewpoint and wrote their divinely inspired words filtered through that pov. If you are an atheist and believe religion and the bible are bs, then you have writers who were influenced by nothing but their own little brains, hard wired, it seems, to blame women for many things.

When someone says they loathe religion and a God who could say and do the things done and said in the name of religion, surely what the bottom line is is that you loathe the actions and thoughts of men?

I of course am writing about the Christian God, I simply don't know enough about other religions to comment with any validity.

Ep - I went to Catholic schools from kindergarten to the end of high school. I broke away at university, horrifying the nuns at school when I said I would go to journalism school instead of the Catholic college at university (an excellent college with very high standards academically, btw). I stayed away from religion for 30 years. But I never became a grade 6 or 7 atheist on that chart quoted a few pages back. Not even a 5. I capitalize the g in God out of a mix of force of habit and respect. Just like if I referred to gods that I don't and never believed in, I would still capitalize their names, like the Buddha.

I don't know if what I said above answers your questions. My basic belief is that women have been oppressed by men for centuries, and that historical record is full of evidence of that repression. When I read people raging against religion (and for the most part on this forum, it's against Christianity, though other religions get mentioned) whether for crimes committed by priests or the historical record, as far as I'm concerned what the bottom line is is that mankind have been scum for centuries, whether under the guise of religion or not.

As I have said about priests - men cover up for each other whether they are priests, school teachers, college coaches, hockey coaches, boy scout leaders, doctors, lawyers, judges, TV stars, well respected members of their community, military, whatever, men will cover up for men, look the other way, not want to get involved. When it comes to war and battles and genocide, there are crimes enough committed by both the religious and the non-believers. The unifying factor is that men, for the most part, are the ones carrying out the actions. I'm sure if someone opened a thread on why do men do evil things we could have quite a far-ranging discussion.

Since my mother died two and a half years ago I started going to church regularly again. Of course, the hospital sent me an invitation to attend meetings for the grieving, which they hold on a regular basis. I suppose if you have no community which you could look to to provide you with solace, that would be the place to go. But the church I now attend was one I would go to for Christmas and Easter with my friends, one I knew had a loving and warm community. When I meet friends there we never, ever talk about religion, we talk about our lives. I gather if I attended some of the churches I've read about in these threads there would be a lot of talk about God and and his plan and other bs like that that would send me packing in short order. There isn't.

This post is too long. And I already said I don't want to get into serious discussion on this topic. :)

[Castel]

No, I don't think that I said in any of my posts that women are at fault. I think for both Bathsheba and Helen it's the idea of woman as seductive temptress whose beauty makes men fall in some way. You don't see many women in either the bible or mythology who are tempted into doing wrong (or sin or evil or whatever you want to call it or whatever the circumstance is) because they are struck by the physical beauty of a man, do you? Look at the US Politics thread - Pat Robertson says it's not General Petraeus' fault, it was that woman seducing him.

I think what Pat Robertson actually said is that Petraeus was "a man". Which is the other thing I see in these works. Often these women are simply passive creatures. It's the man who loses his mind over a woman. It's the man that is so weak as to be unable to control himself. I find it interesting that women were seen as the people prone to sinfulness and who created sin in others. So either the readers didn't notice that this was about the weakness of men, or (infinitely more likely) they simply didn't care, preferring to blame women and so try to control this terrible creature that could drive them insane with lust (somehow).

But religion, at its heart, seems to me to be reaching for truth. It's all spinoffs and alternate cosmologies and retcons. So it makes sense that people read something and feel the spiritual connection and decide: "This part is true."

That's perfectly fine, just be aware that your little spin-off is not the standard by which we judge religion. I cannot deal with the various idiosyncratic beliefs of everyone who identifies as Christian or Muslim. I will deal with the text that the majority of them consider the basis for their faith. So I claim that the concept of Original Sin as described is evil , or the Islamic god is a dictator and murderer, telling me that you feel otherwise is meaningless. My opinion is based on the book and the things in it, you choosing to not give a shit about those sections that are awkward has no bearing on my view of Christianity. It may change my view of you, but not the religion.

As I have said about priests - men cover up for each other whether they are priests, school teachers, college coaches, hockey coaches, boy scout leaders, doctors, lawyers, judges, TV stars, well respected members of their community, military, whatever, men will cover up for men, look the other way, not want to get involved. When it comes to war and battles and genocide, there are crimes enough committed by both the religious and the non-believers. The unifying factor is that men, for the most part, are the ones carrying out the actions. I'm sure if someone opened a thread on why do men do evil things we could have quite a far-ranging discussion.

Men do evil things because they can. They have the self-determination or at the very least they were the ones expected to do such things. I see a lot of talk about a potential matriarchy being different, but any such society would succumb to the same pressures that the male-dominated ones did. Having a queen instead of a king will not change the fact that the other people across the river really like your land and want to take it.

As for the covering thing, I've not yet seen any evidence to suggest that this is a male thing. People cover for people. It's a human pressure.

Hopefully you are not using "men" in the general sense to describe human kind because then I've wasted 90 seconds xD.

[Sci-2]

@FB: On God vs god -> IMO it's better to capitalize God anyway, so we at least have some ability to note that several gods in human history were/are according Supreme Being "God" status, versus gods like Odin and Zeus who are heads of pantheons.

(Though IIRC there was some thought regarding Zeus as the one God. Didn't Edith Hamilton speculate that the rest of the pantheon faded away and Zeus ended up as the One God?)

On men writing scripture -> Yes, most atheists (and I suspect agnostics) believe men wrote scriptures from a biased perspective.

Now, could these same men have been divinely inspired? This is actually more interesting to me than God vs. No-God. Can God inspire works but still watch His/Her/Its word be distorted by the prejudices of humanity?

@Castel:

I will deal with the text that the majority of them consider the basis for their faith. So I claim that the concept of Original Sin as described is evil , or the Islamic god is a dictator and murderer, telling me that you feel otherwise is meaningless.

Judging God on literal readings is fine IMO, but I do think it's worth noting that God-as-depicted-in-work-X isn't necessarily the God that any person believes in. So we cannot, at any time, necessarily point to someone who identifies with a religion whose foundation is work-X and insist they believe in every characteristic or action of the deity described in the text.

To say you can judge the religion in its entirety based on readings of work-X also seems a bit of a reach IMO. Religions are too fluid for that.

eta:

When someone says they loathe religion and a God who could say and do the things done and said in the name of religion, surely what the bottom line is is that you loathe the actions and thoughts of men?

Not really. At best, IMO, you can say you loathe the thoughts of the authors. I'm actually reading The Hindus: An Alternative History by Wendy Doniger, and its interesting to see how many things influence religious texts that get penned.

The question, "Is God really like this?" isn't necessarily one that needs to be answered to make the claim that *if* God is like this, then we as a race should be pressing charges.

[Eponine]

Sci - more important to me is that God didn't write the bible, men did. If the men who wrote what they did were divinely informed, I still don't think they could filter out their viewpoint and wrote their divinely inspired words filtered through that pov. If you are an atheist and believe religion and the bible are bs, then you have writers who were influenced by nothing but their own little brains, hard wired, it seems, to blame women for many things.

When someone says they loathe religion and a God who could say and do the things done and said in the name of religion, surely what the bottom line is is that you loathe the actions and thoughts of men?

Although I didn't say that, I agree that since there are no gods, what I loathe about religion are the actions and thoughts of people. If I were to say that I loathed a god who could say and do the things attributed to the god of the Bible, it's a thought experiment (it makes me a little sick inside when someone accuses me of being an angry theist rather than an atheist - you know what I mean, the kind of person who leaves Christianity because they're "angry with god" or angry with the church or people in the church - and I have known people who did that).

But given that I'm an atheist agnostic with a devoutly religious family, it was worthwhile IMO to decide that even if half of Christianity per the Bible was true, I still wouldn't be a devotee - the implications for me being that I couldn't be a nominal/cultural Christian who played along to keep mommy and daddy happy.

[rocksniffer]

Thread improves with a soundtrack:

I completely agree this thread needs sound, however...

...please pardon my impish nature, I had to fix this... :smoking: